PUBLIC HEARING Variance Application APP2005-00849, Nina Gilman The applicant is requesting a variance to place a twenty-foot wide by twenty-five foot deep carport onto the side of the house that abuts Wainwright Avenue. The property is located at 12901 Atlantic Avenue. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Ms. Gilman presented her request. In response to Mr. Hill regarding the three findings that must be made in order for the Board to approve a variance, Ms. Gilman explained that the side of the property that abuts Wainwright Avenue is a stub street. There is a limited amount of parking on that street. There is no parking on her side of the street and many people use that street for parking to go to the community center. Many pedestrians use that street and she has observed people crowded around her car. For these reasons, she would like to get her car off the street. Ms. Gilman stated that her request would not be contrary to the public interest because there would be fewer cars on the street; the carport would not pose any sight line problems; there is already an 8-foot fence around her house. Only a portion of the carport roof would be seen from the street. Ms. Gilman also explained another reason why she would like a carport and that is because there are many walnut trees around her property that drop huge walnuts on her car, driveway and street. Ms. Gilman submitted photos of a wheelbarrow full of very large walnuts where the carport is proposed as Exhibit 2. Ms. Gilman stated that there was a large tree removed where the carport is going to be located. That tree helped block the light from headlights shining into her house. Ms. Gilman stated that she is proposing to have an addition built onto the back of her house and she noted staff’s concern regarding access to the carport. She explained that she plans to add a six-foot pad of concrete so that she can back her car straight up and around to safely pull out of her driveway. Ms. Gilman submitted a revised plan to replace the plan in the staff report as Exhibit 3. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Ms. Gilman explained that the carport is for two cars because one belongs to her daughter. She said she is aware that a variance would not be needed for a one-car carport. The Board and staff discussed concerns about the access to the carport, height of the carport, and the location of the carport in relation to the proposed addition. Ms. Hall noted that she did recommend denial of the variance, but she did not know about the walnuts and the substantial trees on the property. Ms. Gilman submitted into the record a letter from a neighbor on Wainwright Avenue as Exhibit 4. The neighbor was in support of the application. The Board further discussed why staff recommended denial of the application, design of the carport roofline, lack of architectural drawings for the carport and possible removal of the existing shed in the rear yard. The following citizen testified: Vanessa R. Alaniz, 206 Adclare Court testified that she also had a carport built and it was wonderful because before the carport one of the walnuts from her trees shattered her windshield. She noted that other people in the neighborhood had their cars destroyed by these walnuts. Ms. Alaniz also spoke about the design of her carport roofline. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Variance Application APP2005-00850, John King The applicant is proposing significant improvements to the existing dwelling. As part of the proposed improvements, a six-foot deep by twelve-foot wide addition is proposed along the side of the house. Since the house sits directly on the setback line, a variance of six feet would be needed for its placement. The property is located at 202 Adclare Road. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Mr. John King, contractor, presented the applicant’s request. Mr. King explained that the applicant (Mrs. Jane Jehle) is proposing to build an addition onto the house for her granddaughter’s family. The plan to construct not only the bump-out addition that is the subject of this variance request, but also a significant addition onto the back of the house. Mr. Hill commented that when he visited the property, he walked off about 50 feet of space on one side of the house. Mr. King explained that the applicant does not own all of that property. The house takes up anything it can, from side to side. The lot is only 6,252 square feet and there seems to be a lot more property than the applicant owns. Mr. King discussed the three findings of fact. He said that the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because the heavy vegetation on this lot currently blocks most of the view of the side of the house from Adclare Court. The variance is not the result of any action taken by the applicant this is a very small corner lot. The house fits the building envelope width between the side lot line and Adclare Court. The fifty-two foot wide interior lots across the street could support a thirty-eight foot wide house. The existing house combined with the proposed addition is 38.2 feet wide. As a result, having a corner lot that is only ten feet wider than an interior lot in the same neighborhood is peculiar because it would need to have seventeen more feet in width in order to have the same building envelop width as a fifty-two foot wide interior lot. Mr. King explained that the retention of the existing plumbing and staircase dictate space layout within the footprint of the existing house. In order to design an addition that is compatible with the existing house, he has designed a bump-out addition that would achieve two things: 1) it would provide for closet space on the first floor and recreational space on the second floor, but would also serve to create architectural interest between the old and new sections of the house. He said the master bedroom on the first floor is not large at eleven by thirteen feet. The storage that is typically associated with furniture within a bedroom is being accommodated in a dressing room and walk-in closet. Creating a larger room that does not require separate rooms is not possible because the distance between the staircase and the outer wall is only eleven feet. A cursory look at the plan would seem to indicate that it would be easy to replace the office with the walk-in closet. It is not practical because it would mean that entry into the bedroom would be through the closet. Because the existing conditions dictate the division of space within the space, a literal enforcement would result in practical difficulty. The Board discussed concerns about maintenance of the easement owned by the City, and the vegetation on the easement. The following citizen testified: Vanessa R. Alaniz, 206 Adclare Court, inquired about the building materials of the addition and parking on the Court. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Variance Application APP2005-00851, Ernest Crow & Susan Wittan The applicants are requesting a variance for a ten-foot wide by five-foot six inch deep covered porch onto the front of the existing house located at 27 Eton Overlook. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Ernest Crow and Susan Wittan presented their request. Ms. Wittan stated that they have submitted plats from their entire side of the street and it was found that one side of their house has a 31-foot setback and the other side has a 30-foot setback. She said that several of the homes already come closer to the front property line that what is proposed with the five and a half foot deep porch. Their house is set back farther than the ten closest homes along the same side of the street. Even with the proposed front porch, their house would be set back farther than six of them and, in the worse case, would be within a foot and half of the others. It is also peculiar that their house did not have a more substantial porch when constructed that could have protected the front door from weather and rot. The house faces north and the existing two-foot deep treatment over the front door does not provide any cover from the weather nor could a cover that increases the depth by one foot. The five foot six inch depth combined with the increased width would provide for much better protection for them, their elderly parents, and their family entering and exiting the front door. She said that they have had a case of ant infestation and water problems and this covered porch would help in alleviating these problems. Ms. Wittan stated that they are in the process of landscaping and regrading their front property, which will direct the water runoff from their house. Ms. Wittan noted that the neighbors are all in support of this variance. The Board discussed concerns regarding other residents on the street who also want a covered porch. Ms. Wittan stated that all of her neighbors are incredulous that they had to come before the Board to ask for a variance for the porch. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. DECISION Variance Application APP2005-00849, Nina Gilman Mr. Schwartzman moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to approve Variance Application APP2005-00849, Nina Gilman based on the applicant’s revised plan, which shows the additional area of the driveway being added. An additional condition to require that the carport remain an open structure; that the roofline to repeat the existing gable at the minimum height required to function as a carport going to the existing window; and the design to be reviewed by staff prior to building permit approval. The motion passed unanimously. Variance Application APP2005-00850, John King Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to approve Variance Application APP2005-00850, John King per staff recommendations subject to the additional condition to read, “That the vegetation along the right-of-way be maintained. The motion passed unanimously. Variance Application APP2005-00851, Ernest Crow & Susan Wittan Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to approve Variance Application APP2005-00851, Ernest Crow & Susan Wittan per staff recommendations and adding to the finding of uniqueness of the property for two reasons: 1) the front of the house faces north, and 2) that the property line was found to have a 31-foot setback on one side of the house and 30-feet on the other side. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hill stated that, even though he voted to approve the application, he did take exception to the finding of uniqueness in this case. OLD BUSINESS The Board discussed the upcoming MCPS applications for portable classrooms and having a televised meeting for those applications. The Board also discussed reappointments, terms, and appointing a new chair for 2006. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 11:20 a.m. NOTE: Should further details of this hearing be required, a tape recording of the meeting is available. The Planning Division maintains a tape of the meeting for a period not less than one year from the date of each meeting. | 
